Most Recent Extra Points

Week 6 DVOA Ratings

by Aaron Schatz

Remember that the DVOA commentary now resides on FOXSports.com. You'll find it here. This week we're still doing the comment per team format, with a longer commentary about Denver at the bottom. I may still go back to only commenting on a few teams -- it somewhat depends, oddly enough, on whether FOX can fit in smaller team logos that would allow me to list some teams with ratings but no comments.

One change this week: After many requests, ESTIMATED WINS for teams that have already had a bye week are projected as if all teams had played one game per week. No longer will teams that have played fewer games naturally have fewer estimated wins.

Here are the Football Outsiders team efficiency ratings through Week 5 of 2005, measured by our proprietary Defense-adjusted Value Over Average (DVOA) system that breaks down every single play and compares a team's performance to the league averaged based on situation in order to determine value over average. (Explained further here.)

OFFENSE and DEFENSE DVOA are adjusted based on strength of opponent as well as to consider all fumbles, kept or lost, as equal value. Opponent adjustments are currently set at 50% and will increase each week until they are full strength after Week 10. SPECIAL DVOA is adjusted for type of stadium (warm, cold, dome, Denver/Mexico City) and week of season. NON-ADJ TOTAL VOA does not include these adjustments.

As always, positive numbers represent more points so DEFENSE is better when it is NEGATIVE.

TEAM

TOTALDVOA

LASTWEEK

NON-ADJTOTAL VOA

W-L

OFFENSEDVOA

OFF.RANK

DEFENSEDVOA

DEF.RANK

SPECIALDVOA

S.T.RANK

1

CIN

46.5%

1

68.9%

4-1

21.7%

6

-19.4%

4

5.5%

6

2

NYG

46.2%

2

60.4%

3-1

32.1%

4

5.3%

20

19.4%

1

3

IND

41.9%

6

48.6%

5-0

24.5%

5

-19.2%

5

-1.9%

21

4

PIT

39.4%

3

52.2%

3-1

33.4%

3

-9.8%

7

-3.8%

25

5

SD

34.9%

4

23.4%

2-3

35.4%

2

4.5%

18

4.0%

8

6

SEA

25.5%

9

25.3%

3-2

35.7%

1

9.2%

24

-1.0%

20

7

JAC

21.2%

13

15.4%

3-2

2.2%

16

-10.6%

6

8.5%

3

8

TB

18.0%

10

37.1%

4-1

-8.7%

22

-24.4%

2

2.4%

13

9

DAL

17.0%

16

22.1%

3-2

11.2%

13

-1.8%

15

4.0%

9

10

ATL

15.7%

8

26.5%

3-2

20.5%

7

5.4%

21

0.7%

17

11

PHI

13.4%

5

14.6%

3-2

19.0%

8

-7.4%

8

-13.0%

32

12

MIA

12.4%

7

8.8%

2-2

-7.5%

21

-20.6%

3

-0.7%

19

13

CHI

9.7%

11

8.6%

1-3

-28.6%

30

-34.6%

1

3.6%

11

14

CAR

6.1%

18

11.1%

3-2

-1.0%

18

-3.4%

12

3.7%

10

15

CLE

6.0%

17

-6.1%

2-2

11.6%

12

8.5%

23

2.9%

12

16

DEN

3.9%

12

10.2%

4-1

3.8%

15

-2.4%

14

-2.3%

22

TEAM

TOTALDVOA

LASTWEEK

NON-ADJTOTAL VOA

W-L

OFFENSEDVOA

OFF.RANK

DEFENSEDVOA

DEF.RANK

SPECIALDVOA

S.T.RANK

17

KC

3.7%

14

-5.7%

2-2

11.6%

11

12.8%

26

4.9%

7

18

OAK

1.7%

15

4.1%

1-3

16.3%

9

11.5%

25

-3.0%

24

19

NE

0.7%

19

-11.9%

3-2

12.7%

10

13.4%

28

1.4%

16

20

BUF

-0.1%

20

4.7%

2-3

-19.7%

25

-6.7%

9

13.0%

2

21

WAS

-1.2%

21

-13.0%

3-1

8.7%

14

3.8%

17

-6.2%

30

22

GB

-8.4%

29

-0.4%

1-4

-1.1%

19

2.6%

16

-4.7%

28

23

TEN

-12.5%

25

-4.8%

2-3

-2.8%

20

15.8%

29

6.1%

5

24

ARI

-17.5%

22

-11.3%

1-4

-13.4%

23

4.7%

19

0.7%

18

25

BAL

-25.1%

30

-31.2%

1-3

-24.3%

26

-4.4%

11

-5.2%

29

26

DET

-25.1%

26

-24.2%

2-2

-26.5%

28

-5.3%

10

-3.9%

26

27

STL

-26.5%

24

-20.1%

2-3

-0.6%

17

23.6%

30

-2.4%

23

28

NYJ

-28.9%

28

-17.6%

2-3

-27.5%

29

-2.8%

13

-4.2%

27

29

MIN

-35.7%

27

-57.7%

1-3

-29.5%

31

7.8%

22

1.6%

14

30

NO

-38.1%

23

-46.8%

2-3

-16.2%

24

12.9%

27

-9.0%

31

31

HOU

-56.9%

31

-78.0%

0-4

-25.2%

27

33.2%

32

1.6%

15

32

SF

-70.8%

32

-76.4%

1-4

-53.3%

32

24.2%

31

6.7%

4

FOX RANK represents the FOXSports.com Power Ratings which are 67% 2005 DVOA, 10% 2005 pre-season projection, and 23% a special weighted DVOA for 2004 that includes the playoffs.

ESTIMATED WINSuses a statistic known as "Forest Index" that emphasizes consistency as well as DVOA in the most important specific situations: red zone defense, first quarter offense, and performance in the second half when the score is close. It then projects a number of wins adjusted to a league-average schedule and a league-average rate of recovering fumbles. Teams that have had their bye week are projected as if they had played one game per week.

PAST SCHEDULE lists average DVOA of opponents played this season, ranked from hardest schedule (#1, most positive) to easiest schedule (#32, most negative). It is not adjusted for which games are home or road.

FUTURE SCHEDULE lists average DVOA of opponents still left to play this season, ranked from hardest schedule (#1, most positive) to easiest schedule (#32, most negative). It is not adjusted for which games are home or road.

Comments

"But around here, we don't do the ratings based on what we think. We do them based on what we know. "

Nice ending...

2

by putnamp (not verified) :: Tue, 10/11/2005 - 7:40pm

Pittsburgh has a high offensive and defensive DVOA, and has the second lowest variance in the top 10. That would make them look like the surest bet in that list.

3

by tunesmith (not verified) :: Tue, 10/11/2005 - 8:18pm

I knew there was a reason I was having trouble respecting Indy. They've had the second-easiest schedule in the league so far.

Denver fan here, and I agree that they're not as good as their record. Not yet. They had ten really good quarters there against SD, KC, and Jacksonville, though, so there's potential. They just have to get their passing game on track. I don't know what the deal is with that - is Plummer just blind or are the receivers not running good routes?

4

by Aaron (not verified) :: Tue, 10/11/2005 - 8:52pm

I'm not sure what's wrong with the Denver passing game either. Where did the Ashley Lelie from last year go?

The Denver hate mail is already pouring in, and on orangemane.com I am now just "some idiot from FOX." Apparently, pointing out that I picked Denver to win the division didn't help. (I also forgot to mention that I named my projection system after their offensive coordinator, but I doubt that would have made anyone feel better.)

Hey, I was pretty shocked by the rating too, but I can't make Denver look better by making up stuff that didn't happen. Only Mitch Albom is allowed to do that.

5

by Jersey (not verified) :: Tue, 10/11/2005 - 8:58pm

Alittle edge to the article, you know, a little hostility. It wasn't bad or anything, just noticable. I enjoyed it, i got a laugh out of the obvious jabs to conventional thinking.

One thing I'm confused about is the

"FOX RANK represents the FOXSports.com Power Ratings which are 67% 2005 DVOA, 10% 2005 pre-season projection, and 23% a special weighted DVOA for 2004 that includes the playoffs. "

IS this something fox forced upon you in the agreement? Or is it something that was always included but is now sponsered by fox or something?

Basically, is it in your original intention for FO rankings or is it here because fox wants it to be.

6

by VarlosZ (not verified) :: Tue, 10/11/2005 - 9:19pm

Hey, I was pretty shocked by the rating too, but I canâ€™t make Denver look better by making up stuff that didnâ€™t happen. Only Mitch Albom is allowed to do that.

I don't get the reference, but it sounds like an interesting story.

7

by johonny (not verified) :: Tue, 10/11/2005 - 9:23pm

Gus pretty much had the same QB rating he's had the last three weeks. While Gus has sucked, the major problem in Miami is the penalties. The Dolphins can't survive by putting Gus in long pass situation time and time again.

8

by James Gibson (not verified) :: Tue, 10/11/2005 - 9:56pm

I think it was "some dimwit from Fox." The problem is you'll never quite get all the people to understand predictive rankings as opposed to "who did you beat" rankings? About 10 years ago, I tried to devise my own rankings based on the Pythagorean theorem and use them on the Broncos mailing list (I am a Broncos fan after all), and got chewed out when the Broncos came up lower than the Packers even though the Broncos had a better record. FWIW, that season, the Packers won the Super Bowl and Denver was knocked out by Jacksonville.

People will always insist on making W-L the #1 criterion, and if we had a college football system, I'd agree that's the way to go - reward you for wins. But for predictive purposes, which is what we want, points and DVOA is the way to go.

9

by James Gibson (not verified) :: Tue, 10/11/2005 - 9:57pm

VarlosZ - Mitch Albom wrote a story where he said he saw Morris Peterson and Mateen Cleaves in the stands at last year's final 4. Neither one was there.

#2 - Pittsburgh has a high offensive and defensive DVOA, and has the second lowest variance in the top 10. That would make them look like the surest bet in that list.

Um, I think Pittsburgh has the second highest variance in the top ten. Indy is #5 in both offense and defense DVOA, and has the lowest variance in the top ten, so according to your logic they would be the "surest bet". Though their schedule so far surely does call that into question...

11

by Parker (not verified) :: Tue, 10/11/2005 - 10:59pm

Hey, Albom wrote his piece about the game the day before, how was he supposed to know they wouldn't be there. Sheeesh!!

12

by James Gibson (not verified) :: Tue, 10/11/2005 - 11:45pm

I forgot to mention - is A-Rod a choker? I know that was ESPNN, and this is Foxsports.com, but I didn't know where else to appropiately make that comment.

13

by mactbone (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 12:16am

Everyone in Chicago is freaking out about the Bears secondary and saying that Tillman and Chris Harris are horrible players. I have my doubts that they're the problem but I'd like to know why DVOA (and VOA) like the Bears pass defense.

Also, which team had the largest difference between offense and defense DVOA?

I don't think Denver is playing like one of the top ten teams in the NFL. They are currently dead last (#32) in 3rd down conversion percentage. The Broncos have only played one exceptional game this season, at home versus Kansas City. They played a good, but not great game against Jacksonville. Their two other wins would have easily gone to the otherside if it weren't for Champ Bailey and Tatum Bell.

15

by D. Cohen (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 4:01am

Lets first all remember how early in the year this is. The thing which I look at on this chart is estimated wins v actual wins. Anything over a game difference tells you something:

According to the chart, SD should have 4 wins while DEN should only have 3. This shows that DEN has pulled out the close ones while SD has not. This may change.

TB is slightly overachieving.

HOU and SF might never win again. (according to the chart)

16

by Matt Hernandez (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 10:24am

Let's just sit here and think for a bit. Hmmmmmmm..... Denver is 4-1 and they have beaten very respectable opponents in San Diego, Jacksonville, and Washington, not to mention a huge rivalry game with Kansas City. Alright now that you guys know that, which with the look at the new ratings you guys don't. Have you guys ever stopped to realize that the less plummer throws the better the Broncos are? And maybe its ok to throw for 150 yards because they have one of the best running back duo's in the league. Then you go on by saying that they were outplayed and they should have this and this for wins. That is all rubbish because who won? Denver! The last I knew that is all that matters! Your right about one thing, and one thing only, they aren't putting up the same numbers on offense as last year! But hey with a new and improved defense you don't need too. Look at the colts, is peyton on track to crack his TD record no, are the colts winning? YES! Is plummer going to throw 27 TD's this year, No! But he also isn't going to throw 20 INT's. I really have a problem with your rankings and don't intend to back off on that opinion. If you did indeed do what you know then you would have Denver atleast in the top five. You can crunch those stats all you like, but one thing will always give you a measurement is wins. Lets look at the wins just for a second ok? The Super Bowl champions of the last ten years records have gone like this; 13-3, 12-4, 13-3, 12-4, 14-2, 13-3, 12-4, 11-5,12-4, 14-2, 14-2.... Now do you think that the teams that already have 2 to 3 losses are going to win the super bowl? NO! Do you think a team that has 1 loss in 5 games has a little better chances to win it? yes! So how about you do what you know, instead of a stupid formula that probably can't even predict when the next sun will rise!

17

by KillerB (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 10:38am

This site linking up with Fox is good for the guys running the site, and good overall, but it sure brings in the douchebags.

18

by mawbrew (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 10:39am

Re: 16

I suspect almost everybody realizes that the less Plummer (has to) throw(s), the more likely the Broncos are to win. That's a pretty reliable formula for most teams. OTOH, there are going to be games where he has to throw (i.e. Miami). If they haven't demonstrated they can perform well in those situations, then it's dangerous to think they will pull those games out.

But I don't think anyone expects you to back off your opinion. After all, it's one of the few things we can truly can our own.

19

by B (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 10:42am

Re #15: I predict Houston or SF will win at least one more game (because they play each other in week 17. That'll be an instant classic.)

20

by Rodafowa (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 10:42am

"Now do you think that the teams that already have 2 to 3 losses are going to win the super bowl? NO!"

Didn't New England start two of their last three Superbowl-winning seasons 1-3 then 2-2? YES!

21

by mawbrew (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 10:49am

I don't think the folks here think the DVOA model is unassailable. It's just the best purely objective model they've been able to develop (so far). I doubt even DVOA's strongest supporters think Chicago and (my beloved) Cleveland are superior to NE, but that's what the numbers say (so far). I give them credit for showing the model as is, even when some of it looks sorta fluky.

22

by Ray (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 11:31am

RE:#16

Basing your entire prediction system purely on past wins is going to cause you problems, even if it didn't crown the Colts SB champ 5 weeks through the season. Just ask the Seahawks last year how well your early season record corresponds to post-season success.

The fact is that the DVOA system is MUCH more objective than other power-ranking systems. For instance, I'm sure you have no problem throwing out the week 1 loss to Miami, but it did happen you know. The numbers from that game aren't going to help the Bronco's ranking.

23

by peremptor (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 11:32am

Just noticed that the estimated wins of cincy and the giants are reversed. I mean how could de gnats have 4.5 estimated wins when they only played 4 games so far right? :)

24

by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 11:45am

All teams estimated wins are projected as if they'd played one game each week.

It's right at the top of the page. :)

25

by elhondo (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 11:47am

Re# 16

By DVOA, Washington isn't very respectable . I'm surprised Washington didn't climb, given how well they played actually.

26

by Moe (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 11:48am

We need to be patient with those who have yet to see the light of DVOA. It isn't really their fault - all other media outlets including the league itself are constantly pushing subjective observation so it takes time counteract the brainwashing.

27

by MJK (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 12:09pm

Re: 16

The problem with DVOA (or at least, with getting more people to understand it and respect it for what it is) is that it is a statistically sound method for predicting how well a team PROBABLY will play. In a large number of cases, it will reflect the best teams over all. After all, hasn't Aaron fine tuned DVOA in order to create a system that correllates to wins over a sseason better than other metrics?

But early in the season, WINS do not correlate well necessarily to strong play, because the team that plays better does not always win, and schedule variations are even more pronounced than late in the season. So a team that got lucky once or twice or played teams that will eventually be revealed to be poor and is 3-0 or 4-1 can very well be a poorer team than one that is 2-2 or even 1-3. It's a small sample size problem, and random effects can still significantly affect a win or two. But that doesn't stop the football masses and most of the sportswriters from annointing a 3-1 team an early champion, because they have an impressive 0.750 win percentage!

28

by Eric (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 12:25pm

DVOA says that Washington played a much better overall game, but Tatum Bell's two big runs were enough to overcome that and give Denver the victory.

HUH? If Washington played a better game, then they would have won. I have one word for you Aaron: SCOREBOARD!!

29

by JasonC23 (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 12:25pm

I'd like to applaud #16 for A) not swearing and B) writing a most perfect parody of a typical fan's response to a statistical rating he disagrees with.

It was a parody, right?

30

by Ray (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 12:35pm

RE:#28 Eric

It's okay, Eric. We'll forgive you for forgetting that luck plays a signficant role in all sports, including football. But for the sake of the rest of us, keep that in mind the next time you want to say that the team that plays the better game will always win.

31

by Aaron (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 12:54pm

Here's the odd thing about the bias claims. If I was so biased, would I rank my favorite team 19th?

Just remember that DVOA is just a tool to help us figure out how teams are doing. You still have to use your brain too. Nobody thinks that Chicago is better than Denver or New England just because they had one big win. But when a team's rating is different from its record, we can look closer at the play-by-play to figure out what might cause problems for that team in the future. (Hint: For Denver, it is the red zone.)

32

by Andrew (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 1:44pm

"After many requests, ESTIMATED WINS for teams that have already had a bye week are projected as if all teams had played one game per week. No longer will teams that have played fewer games naturally have fewer estimated wins."

Why not just do ESTIMATED WINNING PCT?

33

by Independent George (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 1:49pm

I think that there is a legitimate point , though, in saying that DVOA scores aren't everything (not that I've ever seen anybody make that claim). They are great stats which do an incredible job of distilling what happens in the game, but I think there is sometimes a tendency to conflate the statistic with the actual teams and the games that they measure. That's why I love that the stat analysis on FO is supplemented with Every Play Counts and Any Given Sunday - we get both the macro and the micro view of things. I think we need to remember that, like all statistics, it's a tool to help us understand what is happening in the game, and not a replacement for the games themselves.

That said... What if this year, instead of reviving the boring old Irrational Brady vs. Manning Argument thread, we had an Irrational Homer Defense thread? I was all set to rise to the defense of my beloved Giants, except they're currently ranked 2nd in total DVOA.

Aaron, you're obviously biased in favor of "making Giants fans get their hopes up only to be crushed just like the 2000 Super Bowl when I really, truly, honestly, thought they would pull it out and beat the Ravens even going into the fourth quarter."

34

by Eric (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 2:06pm

Itâ€™s okay, Eric. Weâ€™ll forgive you for forgetting that luck plays a signficant role in all sports, including football.

Ray, I didn't forget. Denver's win was ugly, but it was still a win. Did Denver get "lucky"? Maybe, but then tell me why this "lucky" team is still 4-1 and somehow ranked lower than some 2-3 teams. This "lucky" team is tied for the 2nd best record in the NFL.

And yes, maybe the best team doesn't always win, but isn't that why we have competitions? Maybe the NFL should put asterisks next to some games and adjust the standings because the losing team should have won. If Washington played better on Sunday, than they wouldn't have had their kick blocked and they wouldn't have fumbled. Hey, we all get mad when our team doesn't win, but only one thing matters: SCOREBOARD!!

35

by Joshua Ginsberg (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 2:13pm

On the note of Giants fans, I'm a Niners fan who was raised in NY. I almost got shot during their last playoff game. Can we please forget the Giants ever got to the playoffs?

On a note to the rankings system, I like it. I've been lurking on this site for over 10 months before making this my first post. Thank you to the gentleman who run this site. Even if it's not always expressed, we appreciate it.

36

by Xao (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 2:16pm

Sorry Eric,

The SCOREBOARD!! system has very little predictive value. For example, a team that has gotten demonstrably lucky (as in, say recovering fumbles that statistically are more likely to go to the other team) and playing a relatively soft schedule should not necessarily be predicted to outperform a team with a worse record that has perhaps been unlucky and has played a more difficult schedule. Thus, SCOREBOARD!! is not the only metric that matters and may, in fact, be largely irrelevant if you're interested in looking forward over the course of the season, and not merely rehashing past glories.

37

by Ray (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 2:22pm

RE:#34 Eric

From your original post (#28) "If Washington played a better game, then they would have won."

This is specifically what I was responding to, and thank you for acknowledging that the implied assumption that the team that wins always plays a better game was incorrect.

#34 "maybe the best team doesnâ€™t always win"

The fact is, like you said, how well a team plays is not directly responsible for whether they win or not; the final score is. The final score is a GREAT way of determining who won games in the past. However, it is really not a very good way at all of determining who will probably win games in the future, which is what DVOA and Power Rankings are all about.

So you can yell "SCOREBOARD" all you want, and we'll say "Wow, yep, the Broncos sure did win". But recognize that "SCOREBOARD" is largely meaningless when it comes to predicting who will win future games.

1) If you think that past win/loss record is a better predictor of future performance than DVOA, then why don't you substantiate it by actually conducting the following study: Each week predict the winner of every game to be the team with more wins as of the previous week, and compare your success rate with predictions that the winner of each game will be the team with higher DVOA as of the previous week. In the long run, I suspect Aaron's predictions will trounce yours but go ahead and prove me wrong.

2) If you don't want to do that, then the link on my name is to a statistics page you might find more useful, maybe you could start up a discussion forum to debate that.

39

by Eric (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 3:19pm

Ray and Xao, I'm sure you have figured out that I am a Broncos fan and I am fired up that they have won their last four games after that disaster in Miami. You both have made some valid points. I will concede that the Broncos have not played as well as I had hoped, but have still managed to win. (And in the process probably screwing up a lot of fantasy football players and gamblers). Is SCOREBOARD a good predicter of future games? No, but the Broncos have managed to win more than most people have thought. Right now my attitude about the Broncos is we'll see.

On a side note: Living in SoCal I don't get the benefit of local coverage of other teams. The local media is still obsesed with the Raiders for some reason. Attention so-called "Raider Nation" in SoCal: They left. They are not coming back. Get over it. They suck. Al Davis is an idiot.

Aaron must get a kick out of his power rankings. With just a small article on Fox Sports, he manages to p*ss off most football fans and read about it all week here!

40

by Andrew (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 3:20pm

Andrew #32:

I had the upper case "A" Andrew handle here long before you. You are confusing things by using it.

41

by D. Cohen (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 3:33pm

RE #19: I've got the story on that "classic." Its all notted up at 0 and then, in fitting fashion, Carr is sacked in the endzone, breaking his rookie sack record of 73 sacks. 49ers win 2-0.

in addition to the nonexistant predictive factor, another problem with the SCOREBOARD! philosophy is that it does nothing to tell you about the "why?" which is what Football Outsiders is all about.

so if the win loss record is the sum total of your in a team, well, it is pretty clear this is not the site for you.

but, handily, all the information you need for your exegisis on your favorite team is still available on the FOXSports site as well. click the link and just add alcohol.

43

by B (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 3:49pm

RE #33: Homer is a great father and a loving, supportive husband. He's a role model for every American guy. Stuck in a lousy blue-collar job with a boss who barely knows he exists. Yet he provides for a family of 5, has never strayed from his wife (Well, except for his Vegas wife, Mindy, the Lorleen, but he never slept wth those women), met at least two former presidents, crashed a superbowl game, and even went into space. These are accomplishments any of us would be proud of. We should all be more like Homer Simpson.

44

by tunesmith (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 3:55pm

If Denver's passing game really is weak and their rushing game strong, then it means that teams will be tempted to load up and stuff the running game and dare Denver to pass. That's how a mediocre defense with a strong rush defense could win a matchup, and how an opponent with a worse record could outrank Denver. That's what Miami did, I think I recall.

It's also pretty much what Washington did, except for the two long Bell runs. "SCOREBOARD" people will roll their eyes at the "except for..." logic, but there's a good point behind it - you can't rely on the long play always being there. There's a point at which consistency holds sway.

As for the red zone problems, seems like a bend-but-don't-break defense could really mess up Denver.

Maybe DVOA should actually build in a "luck" factor of some sort, reward the teams a bit that seem statistically charmed. If they're freakishly outperforming, automatically nudge their rankings a bit until they line up again. And penalize the teams that look good by all rights but just keep suffering bad bounces.

45

by Matt Hernandez (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 3:55pm

If the makers of DVOA were smart maybe they would crunch them numbers that they so much love to do and give us some reason or proof of its existence. Maybe see how their system works on previous years to establish some credibility. Probably the biggest mistake they made was factoring in the preseason, and last year, 33% of it might I add! This same thing is what got college in trouble by using preseason ranks into their BCS rankings. Which in turn ruined national championship hopes for Auburn. I'm just glad you guys don't have any power over anything, otherwise the nfl would be in some serious trouble. Hmmmm... think about this for a minute, the Bengels and the Giants in the Super Bowl! lol.. What a nightmare! I suggest everyone not pay attention to fox sports and focus on the espn power rankings, I don't imagine this rating system lasting too long!

46

by Independent George (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 3:57pm

#43: What would Frank "Grimey" Grimes say?

47

by B (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 4:03pm

RE #45: Who you going to listen to, a dead guy or a former mental patient?

48

by B (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 4:04pm

I mean #46, but it works for either conversation.

49

by Ray (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 4:18pm

RE:#39 Eric

Hey, thanks for being reasonable. Definitely nothing wrong with supporting the home team, and really #16 does feel a bit low for a 4-1 team (I guess that loss to Miami really hurts them rating-wise).

I think every winning team is allowed one or two regular-eason games where they completely fold up and it doesn't mean that they're destined for disaster (at least that's what I keep telling myself about my Eagles!) If the Broncos keep playing at the current level (especially on defence) then it's hard not to see them in the playoffs.

50

by Joshua Ginsberg (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 4:21pm

What exactly would be wrong with a Giants/Bengals Superbowl? Also, do you want to rely on ESPN power-rankings for who WILL win? That is a system that rests on opinion and PAST performance. This is a system predicated on predicting abilty to perform consistently in the future. I would go more by these rankings then espn power-rankings when picking my knockout pool.

51

by Ray (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 4:22pm

RE:#45 Matt "Maybe see how their system works on previous years to establish some credibility."

You mean like maybe calculating DVOA for every year going back to about 1998 or so? You're right, they really should go and do that.

Somewhere, somehow, people are going to start understanding the difference between predictive ratings and reward rankings. When I was in my teens and early 20s, I don't think I understood it, so I'm not saying it's easy, but maybe somebody needs lay out the basis for this.

Washington and Denver both deserve high reward rankings for only having 1 loss to this point. But that's not predictive power. San Diego deserves a poor reward ranking for 2-3, but just on instinct and knowledge (and DVOA ratings), they seem poised for a season with 5-6 losses at most. After all, we've seen how they can clobber teams, and the other games they've lost - 2 at home to good teams, and 1 on the road in one of the toughest HFA places.

I do, however, wonder if Denver's loss to Miami might be over-infuencing the Broncos rating simply because the Broncos weren't equipped to handle the heat and had exhaustion problems down there. This goes back to factoring in HFA into the DVOA ratings and then also factoring in time of year into different home fields. I think Miami (and other Florida teams) have built in advantages early in the year in the humid conditions, just as Buffalo and Green Bay would have significant HFA late in the year vs. a team such as Miami. That's just a surmise: I'd have to run historical numbers to see if it was accurate.

Is it the widespread American innumeracy that accounts for the constant complaints about DVOA rankings? DVOA, like any such statistical tool, projects probable future performance on the basis of actual past performance. A probability is not a fact about the world as such, but a fact about the likelihood of a specific world-state actually becoming the case. The games still have to be played to see how they really turn out -- the equivalent of quantum wave functions collapsing into existential states, which then have a probability of 1, while all rival probabilistic states collapse to 0. DVOA isn't, at the microanalytical level, about wins & losses but about the nuts & bolts that go into producing Ferraris (Indy, Pitt, Cin, SD) and Yugos (Houston, SF).

I do have one question about DVOA as currently used: how does it account for penalties? As the Ravens-Lions game demonstrated, an entire game can turn on penalties (and, in this case, goofy calls by the refs). The bad calls are random events like fumble recoveries, but consistently getting more penalties than the opponent isn't.

55

by B (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 5:49pm

I've always though the problem with the college football (and other, uhh, retrodictive) rankings is they are published to early in the season. We don't know enough yet. If you try to base rankings on just what happened so far this year, Cincinnati and the Giants end up near the top. If you go too much by last year, you end up with Philly and NE near the top. Aaron's power rankings try to balance the two, but it's hard to know what is the right balance this early in the season. Of course, if we have to wait till week 11, what would we have to argue about untill then?

56

by jeff (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 6:00pm

Has anyone actually looked at the in season predictive value of DVOA and compared it to the predictive value of actual wins (say after 4 or 8 games)? It would be easy to study with all of the past season data. Just tally up DVOA and actual wins after a given number of games and run a simple correlation with wins for the rest of the season. If DVOA is superior to actual wins at predicting future wins it should have a higher correlation coefficient.

57

by B (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 6:21pm

Yes, lots of people have. Estimated wins has a higher coorelation to wins over the second half of the season than first half wins does. IE a team with 5 estimated wins after week 8 has a better chance of winning 5 of thier remaining 8 games than a team that went 5-3 over thier first 8 games does.

58

by Kibbles (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 7:41pm

Re #16: I guess you missed the memo where this was Denver's 4th straight season starting out 4-1. How'd the last 3 end?

I'm a rabid Broncos fan. Lots of people around here can attest to that. But let's not ignore facts. A fast start does not guarantee a fast finish, and if Denver doesn't step up their play, they won't finish fast. They got outplayed last week. They still walked away with the win, though, which is what matters. And for all the history of fast starts and slow finishes, I'd rather be 4-1 than 2-3.

But still, Denver hasn't been playing great football yet.

59

by Richie (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 7:52pm

Don't you dimwits realize that the Miami Dolphins were 2-1. 2-1!!! Obviously, the scoreboard rulez and they were one of the best teams in the league through 4 weeks. I would have to say that it's obvious they are a team that will need to be reckoned with in the post season.

Aaron, i don't know if this would be possible but it might be a good idea. Could you go through a game on a play by play or a drive by drive basis and explain DVOA. I think most of us would find it very interesting and might go a long way towards helping people understand what you are doing. If this is proprietary and you don't want to I totally understand. For example, in The Hidden Game of Football the authors examine some games on a drive by drive basis and assign each team a win probability at the end of each drive. I always thought that was interesting.

61

by Justus (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 8:10pm

I like Arizona fans best because they aren't nearly as annoying as Pittsburgh, Denver, New England, and Washington fans. Aaron should write negative articles about each NFL team, correlate the number of angry responses, and determine which fans are the biggest homers.

Maybe we should try and think of DVOA as measuring peripheral stats rather than yet another internet power rating. It's not perfect but i think it goes a long way in explaining what teams do well and what they don't. You know what's a great stat, passer rating. it corrolates really well with scoring and winning. Or you can go check out bud goode's site and see what he has to say about yards per pass attempt. Denver is very mediocre in both catagories. Or you can check back every week and see how denver is doing.
Finally think about this, remember in 97-98 when Denver was beating the holy snot out of just about everybody. At times they looked like just an amazing combination of consistancy and explosiveness. OK in 98 their defense was not amazing but still good. Go look at their stats from those years and then look at denver in 2005. Yes they are 4-1 against some good teams and they have played well at times. But they are no longer all that and a bag of chips. I think that is what DVOA is trying to tell us.

63

by RCH (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 8:50pm

Watching the complex topics discussed on FO being introduced to the masses on Fox is interesting. I wonder if the resulting Luddism will be limited to the rankings thread or will spread to the rest of the site?

64

by Murr (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 10:18pm

Re #63: Oh, please no. I don't mind coming to this one thread every week to be somewhat amused by what I can only describe as the ignorance of the general football fan. But I really, *really* want the rest of the site to stay a safe haven for intelligent discourse.

If the result of the FoxSports.com deal is the lowering of FO to the level of ESPN.com forums, I will be unspeakably disappointed.

65

by James Gibson (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 10:22pm

#63 - I'm guessing it won't, although it could easily spill over into threads about player rankings. I doubt it spills into Any Given Sunday or Every Play Counts or Scramble for the Ball - those are observation oriented columns. However, it will never leave the rankings threads. I spent years reading the Baltimore Orioles newsgroup and most of it just devolved into arguments between "statheads" and "dugout boyz" and I belive the same argument is ongoing their today, about 8 years later. Some people will never accept sabermetric-type analysis.

66

by 2 cents (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 11:11pm

All the above arguments about ranking systems and predictions etc are missing a point from my perspective. A ranking denotes nothing but the CURRENT rank of a team, based on a few factors including current record and opponent strength etc. Now, using the ranking to consistently predict performance of any team is I believe, an impossible task. So estimated wins etc are nonsensical. If formulae could correctly predict wins and yearly records of teams, then most of us would be making a living off of sports betting.

I think, we can predict winners of INDIVIDUAL games fairly consistently upto 2 weeks ahead by doing a thorough analysis of each team involved in each game. Also, the prediction for week 2 would be less accurate than for week 1. Therefore revisiting week 2's prediction is warranted after results of week 1 are out. (For ex: injury to Tom Brady in week 1's game etc).

On average my prediction is about 70% (usually 10/14 correct). Lat week's was a dismal 7/14. Lot of close games and I went with the home teams like chargers, falcons etc. Anyways....

67

by B (not verified) :: Wed, 10/12/2005 - 11:13pm

I don't think it has anything to do with the foxsports.com affiliation. I suspect it's got more to do with Broncos related blogs finding and linking to this site. And these guys got nothing on the Pittsburg fans we had last year when MDS had the gall to suggest that Steelers players were underrated.

68

by Purds (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 2:42am

Re: 33 (I know, a long time ago!)

Can't we get just a little into the Manning/Brady feud this year? We have a classic reversal: Manning's team giving up 6 points a game, him not having to do much, and his team playing an easy schedule to land him at 5-0. Brady, on the other hand, is second in the league in passing yards, has more play-calling options without Weis and is audibling to passes, but has a defense giving up 27 points a game to saddle him with a 3-2 record.

I just want to see if in reverse roles, everyone sticks to their arguments. In other words, Pats fans traditionally say "Who cares about defense? Your QB (Manning) is a choker, plain and simple." And Colts fans say "Don't blame our QB (Manning), it's the defense that puts perfectionist pressure on the QB (Manning) to win." Do they still say the same things? Will Pats fans still claim defense has nothing to do with wins? Will Colts fans still claim a lousy defense will ruin any QB?

Isn't the reversal just too obvious for us NOT to comment on it?

69

by PerlStalker (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 3:18am

I have to side with Kibbles above. I'm also a Bronco fan, but am a bit conserned with how the offense has played. I think DVOA shows that they definitely have issues there to work out. Despite all that, they're 4-1. As a homer, all I can say is that I don't care how bad they play as long as they keep winning. :-)

70

by R.J. (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 4:52am

I'm a Bronco fan who isn't surprised that Denver's DVOA ranking dropped after the 'Skins game. All those three and outs and all those yards they gave up, it really had to happen. On the bright side, in the last few years the Broncos have been losing almost every game that played out like that so winning one was a nice change. So far the defense has been fine (even in the Miami game they played well until all 3 starting CBs got hurt at the same time in the 3rd quarter). And the special teams are miles better than in previous years. And on offense the running game has been fine too (save red-zone issues). The passing game is another story. In part the numbers are down by design to avoid mistakes and rely on the good defense, but the problem has been on the horizon for a couple years now as it has been fairly obvious that Lelie was not going to be very good and Smith is getting older (but still hanging on). The red zone problems are still there - the smallish o-line just doesn't get much of a push in power running plays, except for some clever plays passing to tackles-eligible and full backs that have saved them so far. I'm not sure that the passing game is fixable except maybe to try to include the TEs (and maybe Bell/Anderson more as receivers). It's hard to imagine them being effective when they "have to pass" but with a good running game and a good-to-great defense maybe those situations won't come up too often.

71

by 2 cents (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 5:01am

DVOA. phuh!!!!

72

by Neil in DC (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 1:11pm

On the general issue of innumeracy feeding into some fans excoriating DVOA, I have an idea that might help (and that would really be cool). I wonder if you could create a table that shows how to use DVOA in its proper, predictive sense. For example, if a +20 DVOA team hosts a -5 DVOA team, what is the probability of the home team winning? (I would run the numbers and create such a table myself if my math skills were up to snuff.) Seems like this could be an interesting exercise for helping people understand DVOA as a tool for understanding the probability (not the certainty) of various future outcomes, not as a simple "who's won the most games," for which one might as well just go to nfl.com and click on "Standings."

73

by Tony (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 3:48pm

Hey, can we stop talking about the Broncos now? HOW BOUT THEM BENGALS! :)

74

by Independent George (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 4:30pm

#68 - That's a really good point, except for one thing: forcing people to reconsider their positions might end up unintentionally sparking a RATIONAL Manning vs. Brady debate. And that's just no fun at all.

75

by CJFARLS (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 5:14pm

Re: #41
A 0-2 SF vs. HOU game would assume either team could play defense ;-)

Re: the rankings
As another Broncos homer, I have to say I'm a bit surprised at how low both the 'Skins & Broncs are ranked... To a certain extent, I can see this as being a game where 2 pretty decent defenses made eachother's teams look bad.

While the Broncs definitely are not a top-5 team, they've played quality teams and won. My guess is, as Opponent adj factors in more (now only 50%), the Broncos (& maybe Washington?) will move up. Of course, if they don't improve their 3rd down/Red Zone/Pass efficiency, all the opponent adjustment in the world won't save them.

76

by doktarr (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 8:49pm

Re: Purds #68,

In the counting stat, DPAR, Manning is ahead of Brady, 3rd vs. 4th. He's only a couple points ahead of him, but he is ahead, despite over 40 fewer attempts.

In DVOA (the rate stat), Manning is miles ahead of Brady. Only Roethlisberger (who's in 9th in DPAR due to his small number of attempts) is ahead of Manning in DVOA, and Brady is way back in 9th place. 9th is still good, but it's a lot worse than Manning. In fact, it's a lot worse than Brady was LAST year.

Of course, last year was a career year for both of them, so it would be reasonable to expect a small step back from both of them, which is exactly what we've seen. We've also seen a drop in attempts for Manning (although not much of an increase for Brady - he had nearly as many attempts as Manning last year) but we can correct for that using DVOA.

Why would Manning backers need to change their argument? This year's results thus far have simply exposed the fallacy of equating QB and team performance. They have also diffused the argument that Manning's contract keeps the Colts from having a good defense.

By the way, you really ought to get over to the QB section of the site, just to gawk at Alex Smith's numbers. AWESOME.

77

by The Wes (not verified) :: Thu, 10/13/2005 - 11:39pm

Just a thought I've had as a loyal outsider, but has any thought been given to, say, throwing out the best and worst performances by a team to see what they look like with a blowout impacting their overall numbers? I understand this is certainly too early in the season for it to have much of an overall impact (barring things like the GB-NO or DET-CHI matches), but it would be very interesting to see later in, or at the end of, the season.

78

by mactbone (not verified) :: Fri, 10/14/2005 - 12:28am

Re: 77
I'm almost positive it's been brought up before and the consensus is that there are only 16 games per team already so taking out 2 games makes a small sample size even smaller and less effective.

79

by mactbone (not verified) :: Fri, 10/14/2005 - 12:35am

Sorry to post again, but I just noticed that half the players on the PFP cover have missed games dues to injuries (Akers, Vick, Harrison) and both running backs are doing poorly. The only player currently having success is Hasselbeck but his name was misspelled therefore reversing the ill effects of the cover jinx.

Methinks a curse may have its beginnings.

80

by Budman (not verified) :: Fri, 10/14/2005 - 10:01am

By the way, you really ought to get over to the QB section of the site, just to gawk at Alex Smithâ€™s numbers. AWESOME.

LOL. You are so mean.

What I actually find more intersting in the QB page is how Schaub is rated better in every category (after one game and vs beat up DEF though) but still lost the game. I really do think Vick is a ratings devil and ATL even more so. No Question.

I would love to see ATL win the SB just to see the football statistics world hit the "Brown Note".

81

by zlionsfan (not verified) :: Fri, 10/14/2005 - 3:36pm

Something I've noticed recently: I don't have my copy of PFP at work, but I seem to recall that the theory is that special teams performance varies randomly from year to year, with a few exceptions. Maybe three or four teams at most seemed to be good, year-in and year-out.

One of those teams was Detroit (which is why I "remembered" this), and another was Philadelphia, I think.

There's still a lot of time left in the season, but it'll take quite a bit of work for them to post top-10 appearances this year. That, and new hamstrings for Akers and Hanson.

82

by reality (not verified) :: Fri, 10/14/2005 - 8:40pm

Purds,
Who has Peyton played against this year, the over-rated Ravens defense?
Every year without failing, the Colts have had soft schedules. You can qoute DVOA and every other stat, but at the end of the day it is easier to look great against the Texans defense twice a year than Bills, Jets or Miami defenses. This goes beyond any adjustment of stats, Brady consistently faces excellent defenses almost every week. Go back and look at the defenses Brady has faced these last few years, and then
tell me all your stats about Manning being #3 at this or #2 at that. Brady played all of 2003 with a seperated shoulder, against good defenses every week. His offense has lacked star power
until Corey Dillon came along. How much more would Manning have done in Brady's
shoes, would Manning have won four superbowls in four years?
Maybe Manning would throw more touchdowns against weak teams in Brady's shoes, but he would throw more interceptions against good teams. That
is the real difference, which stats don't always discover perfectly.
The Colts had a better defense last year than the Pats do this year, and played a Charmin soft schedule as usual, with similar results so far.

re 82
in 2003 Brady played against the Colts and Texans. While your overall point is one i agree with in general, lets not go overboard

84

by curious (not verified) :: Fri, 10/14/2005 - 11:16pm

Any thoughts on why Carolina is so far down the DVOA in 2003? They went 11-5, and went through DAL, STL, and PHI on the way to the superbowl, yet they have a negative rating and are ranked 20th(!)

85

by Ryan carney (not verified) :: Mon, 10/17/2005 - 1:40pm

A few observations.
1.) Considering schedule and the way they have lost, San Diego is probably one of the best 3-3 team ever (pass defense stats are a funny thing, look how Collins and Manning raked up yards, but only put up 14 and 20 points, respectively). How many times has a team looked at the schedule on week 7, seen a 3-3 team and said, "uh oh, we've got trouble next week", that's what the Chargers induce.

2.) Aaron, I don't want to tell you how to do your job, but I think it is incredibly necessary to do a story on Roy Williams, and I say this for two reasons. 1.) He is really having an incredible year outside the Moss incident. 2.) HE SHOULD BE SUSPENDED BY NOW FOR ALL OF THE HORSE COLLAR TACKLES HE MAKES. Watch film, and you will see that this is the dirtiest player out there, and he should get flagged on every tackle he makes from behind. Why have this rule in the NFL? he shows blatant disregard for it and is going to get someone hurt..and he may have cost the Eagles the Super Bowl last year (imagine what T.O would have done healthy)

3.) Purds, that's a good observation, but I now hate you, because you have opened up the Brady/Manning can of worms, which I got sucked into last year, but screw that this year.

86

by "Andrew" (not verified) :: Fri, 10/21/2005 - 12:59am

re: Andrews

The earliest "Andrew" post I could find was from 11/1/03. My posts started shortly thereafter. Not sure why it matters to you, but if that 11/1 post was you, I'll use a different name.